Originally posted by Rob Stein"There are pharmacists who will only give birth-control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to [dispense] it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

That's what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when the condom they were using broke. Their fear spiked when the Walgreens pharmacy near their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency prescription for the morning-after pill.

Far-right Christianity now creeps its way into our pharmacies. God forbid these guys do what they're being paid to do!

I don't remember that thread being quite the train wreck that it was. Man were we a bunch of angry people back in November.

Anyway, they mention in the article that some states are looking to pass a "If you refuse to fill a perscription on moral grounds, you must find someone else to fill it" law which is a good thing in my opinion. This paragraph kind of threw me:

An increasing number of clashes are occurring. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.

As far as I know, they only risk dismissal when they VIOLATE THE RULES by not passing on the perscription.

-Jag

Of course, looking at it from a purely econmical standpoint: Why would I want a pharmacist who insists on not filling perscriptions? If I own a pharmacy, why would I hire or continue to employ somebody who goes out of their way to make me lose money?

Three thoughts:A) If an owner of a pharmacy chooses not to dispense a drug(s) for ANY reason, that should be OK (they have the right to sell or not to sell whatever they want)

B) However, an employee of an pharmacy that is not an owner does not have that same right. I think it is well within the rights of the pharmacy to make dispensing whatever drugs the pharmacy would like to sell as a condition of employment.

C) Is this really a big problem? How many pharmacists nationwide are really making this objection? A dozen? I really can't believe it is many, and suspect that this is a tiny, tiny issue that is being magnified in the media spotlight.

Originally posted by JaguarIOf course, looking at it from a purely econmical standpoint: Why would I want a pharmacist who insists on not filling perscriptions? If I own a pharmacy, why would I hire or continue to employ somebody who goes out of their way to make me lose money?

There is a huge pharmacist shortage (at least here in CA). Good luck finding another one to replace the one you got rid of.

Originally posted by ges7184Three thoughts:A) If an owner of a pharmacy chooses not to dispense a drug(s) for ANY reason, that should be OK (they have the right to sell or not to sell whatever they want)

B) However, an employee of an pharmacy that is not an owner does not have that same right. I think it is well within the rights of the pharmacy to make dispensing whatever drugs the pharmacy would like to sell as a condition of employment.

C) Is this really a big problem? How many pharmacists nationwide are really making this objection? A dozen? I really can't believe it is many, and suspect that this is a tiny, tiny issue that is being magnified in the media spotlight.

Very few. Mrs AWA is a RPh, but she's on sabbatical (ok, about 10 years of it, being a Mom). But she worked in Hospital for many years before that. The hospital she worked in did not allow the dispensing of birth control medications (It was a Catholic hospital). Steph, I think, would have no problem with birth control. She has said many times that she can't think of a moral reason that she would not fill a prescription, but many medical ones (a Phamacist's main job is to look at drug interactions and advise/warn the Doctor, since their specialty is treatment, while the Pharmacist's is drug interactions). You talk to the Doc about those.

But the "morning after" pill (I forget - like RU485 or something like that) pill, if she had to dispense it, I bet she would consider it.

I doubt there are many RPhs that fail to dispense as the Doctor directs, as long as there are no problematic interactions.

Originally posted by DrDirtWouldn't the reasonable thing be for the Pharmacy or Pharmicist to make it clear up front to Drs and patients what they won't do as well as be up front with their employer?

The front end of that's not very feasible from sheer volume alone. Doctors see hordes of patients every day; pharmacists deal with hordes of patients AND doctors every day. My doctor already throws his hands up if I ask questions about how/if a prescription is covered on my insurance plan; he has enough to deal with in his office without becoming an encyclopedia of multiple pharmacy and insurance-plan policies. Expecting him to know that "it's covered, but Joe at Walgreen's won't fill it, try Bob at Eckerd instead" would simply add to the chaos.

Likewise, patients generally don't deal with pharmacists until they need something in a timely manner. If pharmacies had a sign up reading "This Pharmacy WILL NOT dispense birth control medications," it'd be one thing, but this is more about individual pharmacists raising objections than store policies. It's silly to expect patients to actively have to ask _all_ of their pharmacy's pharmacists ahead of time whether they consider certain prescriptions to be acceptable and fillable.

On the pharmacist-pharmacy level, yes, the pharmacist should step up and say "Hey, boss, I won't dispense X or Y" before having to deal with patients if the objections run that deep. However, the pharmacy owner should also be allowed to say "That's part of the job description, and if you won't do that, we'll let you go and hire someone else who will." I'm a writer, not a pharmacist, but if I went to my boss and said "I have a moral objection about prepositions and refuse to edit documents that contain them," I'd expect the same treatment.

I totally disagree with any pharmacist that refuses to dispense certain drugs, based upon their personal beliefs. These people should keep their beliefs to themselves or to their congregation/friends/pet rock/whatever.

I'd love to know whether that specific pharmacy stocks up on condoms. Any W's in that area?

Is it possible, parchance, for a pharmacy to initiate a new standing order that dictates their decision?

Originally posted by SOKI totally disagree with any pharmacist that refuses to dispense certain drugs, based upon their personal beliefs. These people should keep their beliefs to themselves or to their congregation/friends/pet rock/whatever.(edited by SOK on 30.3.05 0822)

If you have a very strongly held personal belief and that belief leads you to the conclusion that dispensing "x" is morally/ethically/religiously wrong, you shouldn't do it. However, you must be willing to accept the consequences of said decision. And I am a pro-choice Democrat. I simply think, even if it is naive, that there has to be a way to avoid this upfront, except in small towns with one drugstore and one pharmacist.

I have to disagree with DrDirt. I don't believe in killing people. For that reason I am not a member of the military. I do not believe in the system of lobbying in our country. For that reason I am not a lobbyist. The job of a pharmacist is to safely dispense medicines as prescribed by doctors, exercising judgment where it is in the patient's best health interest (if they notice an improper drug interaction, etc.) It is not the job of the pharmacist to be the moral arbiter of which drugs should be consumed by which people. And in many places like you mention (small towns with 1 pharmacist) that is effectively the control you give to these people. For someone in a city with a Walgreen's or CVS on every corner it's a minor inconvenience.

Also, I wonder, where do you draw the line. Emergency contraception? Birth control? ED drugs? Obesity drugs (you really should be able to control your weight with dieting and exercise you fat bastard...NO DRUGS FOR YOU!)?

I recognize the moral dilemma for the person involved, and I want to respect it. But if you choose a job which involves serving the public (and if you take a job as a pharmacist in a dispensary that's what you're doing) I cannot agree with the notion that you then get to dictate to THEM based solely on your morals.

Or let's look at it another way. If a young woman in a small town came into a doctor's office pregnant, and the doctor said he would not treat her due to her being unmarried, would we agree with that decision as well?

Originally posted by spfOr let's look at it another way. If a young woman in a small town came into a doctor's office pregnant, and the doctor said he would not treat her due to her being unmarried, would we agree with that decision as well?

spf-

I don't think it's not as simple as saying it is your job & therefore you can not apply your own moral code to the manner in which you do it.Let's take your analogy & tweak it a bit:If a young woman came to a small town OBGYN & requested an abortion (assuming her health was not at risk & this was a voluntary procedure), do you think the doctor should be forced to perform the procedure if he/she is morally against abortions?

Originally posted by spfOr let's look at it another way. If a young woman in a small town came into a doctor's office pregnant, and the doctor said he would not treat her due to her being unmarried, would we agree with that decision as well?

spf-

I don't think it's not as simple as saying it is your job & therefore you can not apply your own moral code to the manner in which you do it.Let's take your analogy & tweak it a bit:If a young woman came to a small town OBGYN & requested an abortion (assuming her health was not at risk & this was a voluntary procedure), do you think the doctor should be forced to perform the procedure if he/she is morally against abortions?

I would suppose the pharmicist or doctor could also argue that they are also looking out for the health of the patient. I don't necessarily agree but it is unfair to paint this as a black/white issue. It just isn't that simple.

Originally posted by spfOr let's look at it another way. If a young woman in a small town came into a doctor's office pregnant, and the doctor said he would not treat her due to her being unmarried, would we agree with that decision as well?

spf-

I don't think it's not as simple as saying it is your job & therefore you can not apply your own moral code to the manner in which you do it.Let's take your analogy & tweak it a bit:If a young woman came to a small town OBGYN & requested an abortion (assuming her health was not at risk & this was a voluntary procedure), do you think the doctor should be forced to perform the procedure if he/she is morally against abortions?

I think in either case, the pharmacist/prescription or doctor/abortion - you knew that these decisions/procedures would come with the territory. If your personal convictions wouldn't allow you to act in the manner expected of your profession, you should have chosen a different profession.

Originally posted by Von MaestroLet's take your analogy & tweak it a bit:If a young woman came to a small town OBGYN & requested an abortion (assuming her health was not at risk & this was a voluntary procedure), do you think the doctor should be forced to perform the procedure if he/she is morally against abortions?

Let's not, because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. In the original, a DOCTOR has prescribed meds (or birth control or whatever) to the patient.

In your abortion example, the PATIENT is the one driving the request for the abortion, and I have no problem with a doctor saying he wouldn't perform it. OTOH, if a doctor prescribed an abortion and referred his patient to another doctor who was otherwise qualified to perform the abortion, and THAT doctor refused to perform it, a la the pharmacists refusing to carry out the doctor's prescriptions, that's just wrong.

Originally posted by Sec19Row53I think in either case, the pharmacist/prescription or doctor/abortion - you knew that these decisions/procedures would come with the territory. If your personal convictions wouldn't allow you to act in the manner expected of your profession, you should have chosen a different profession.

I don't think that is fair to Docs or RPhs. They both take a vow to maintain life. I was there for the Mrs' vow. Just because someone approves a drug, it doesn't mean that you have to prescribe it to have to dispense it. Pharmacists refuse prescriptions from Docs all the time - and the customers either go back to the Doc to get it changed (usually the RPh does that for the patient) or the patient goes to a different dispensing agency. This reason may be medical, supply or moral. Many drug stores (both retail and hospital) do not carry birth control of any type. Not that's not any majority or anything - but many small town independent druggists would be in that category. Many Doctors do not prescribe birth control medicine for unmarried people. I know that is amazing in our day and age, but it is true.

The patient has the right to change his or her doctor or pharmacist if they do not agree with his or her or their policy. And the small town dodge doesn't play either. Almost anyone can be in a big city (30-40K) in just a few minutes or maybe an hour or two. And a RPh or Doc who wouldn't prescribe would no doubt be willing to refer.

Why are Docs and RPhs excluded from moral decisions? Especially when they take a vow to maintain life?

And they suffer the consequenses. If a Car Salesman made the moral decision to only sell Hybrid cars, for example, then he or she might have to live with the decision - that his or her sales would be smaller, that their customers might be less satisfied, they they might have to send people who disagree with their position to people who would sell them a less morally satisfactory automobile. They might lose revenue, but they could live with that, because they followed their own moral code. In fact, their boss might fire them because of it, but once again, they could live with that and maybe even get the money together to buy their own, Hybrid only, dealership.

Originally posted by JayJayDeanIn your abortion example, the PATIENT is the one driving the request for the abortion

JJD-In the case of someone taking birth control pills or the morning after pill, it is the patient that is driving the request as well. Assuming that there is no danger to the mother's health here, no doctor would prescribe the morning after pill or a birth control pill without the patient asking for it.

Originally posted by Sec19Row53I think in either case, the pharmacist/prescription or doctor/abortion - you knew that these decisions/procedures would come with the territory. If your personal convictions wouldn't allow you to act in the manner expected of your profession, you should have chosen a different profession.

Sec19-Do you really think that any person who is Pro-Life should not be an OBGYN?

Originally posted by Von MaestroSec19-Do you really think that any person who is Pro-Life should not be an OBGYN?

If that OBGYN would not perform an abortion, yes.

If personal choice matters in this debate, I abhor abortion, and wish that it would never happen. However, I can't in good conscience state that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. I also don't think I'm right in the debate, and don't want to force my opinions on those who would disagree with me.

Originally posted by Von MaestroJJD-In the case of someone taking birth control pills or the morning after pill, it is the patient that is driving the request as well. Assuming that there is no danger to the mother's health here, no doctor would prescribe the morning after pill or a birth control pill without the patient asking for it.

As regards birth control, that's not entirely true. Mrs. JJD takes a pill that happens to be a birth control pill for a condition called Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. It so happens that the birth control pill is the BEST option for treatment of these symptoms, so the doctor (with Mrs. JJD's consent, obviously) prescribed it. I've been with Mrs. JJD when she's gotten a "why did they prescribe you THIS?"-reaction from the pharmacist, followed by Mrs. JJD giving the "I've got PCOS"-spiel, and if a pharmacist EVER said "I'm not giving you the because they're birth control", that would be a conversation we'd have to continue in the parking lot because that guy is a controlling asshole.

Originally posted by Sec19Row53If that OBGYN would not perform an abortion, yes.

If personal choice matters in this debate, I abhor abortion, and wish that it would never happen. However, I can't in good conscience state that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. I also don't think I'm right in the debate, and don't want to force my opinions on those who would disagree with me.

You're kidding, right? I mean, you can't seriously be trying to argue that a doctor has to perform ELECTIVE surgery despite having moral or ethical objections to performing that ELECTIVE procedure or they can't be a doctor? I find that position to be frighteningly authoritarian and profoundly objectionable.